RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are two imaging techniques that attempt to increase malignant breast lesion conspicuity. The combination of these into a single technique, contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis (CE-DBT), could potentially integrate the strengths of both. The objectives of this study were to assess the clinical feasibility of CE-DBT as an adjunct to digital mammography, and to correlate lesion enhancement characteristics and morphology obtained with CE-DBT to digital mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance (MR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CE-DBT (GE Senographe 2000D; Milwaukee, WI) was performed as a pilot study in an ongoing National Cancer Institute-funded grant (P01-CA85484) studying multimodality breast imaging. Thirteen patients with ACR BI-RADS category 4 or 5 breast lesions underwent imaging with digital mammography, ultrasound, MR, and CE-DBT. CE-DBT was performed at 49 kVp with a rhodium target and a 0.27-mm copper (Alfa Aesar, Ward Hill, MA) filter. Preinjection and postinjection DBT image sets were acquired in the medial lateral oblique projection with slight compression. Each image set consists of nine images acquired over a 50-degree arc and was obtained with a mean glandular x-ray dose comparable to two conventional mammographic views. Between the precontrast and postcontrast DBT image sets, a single bolus of iodinated contrast agent (1 ml/kg at 2 ml/s, Omnipaque-300; Amersham Health Inc., Princeton, NJ) was administered. Images were reconstructed using filtered-backprojection in 1-mm increments and transmitted to a clinical PACS workstation. RESULTS: Initial experience suggests that CE-DBT provides morphologic and vascular characteristics of breast lesions qualitatively concordant with that of digital mammography and MR. CONCLUSION: As an adjunct to digital mammography, CE-DBT may be a potential alternative tool for breast lesion morphologic and vascular characterization.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are two imaging techniques that attempt to increase malignant breast lesion conspicuity. The combination of these into a single technique, contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis (CE-DBT), could potentially integrate the strengths of both. The objectives of this study were to assess the clinical feasibility of CE-DBT as an adjunct to digital mammography, and to correlate lesion enhancement characteristics and morphology obtained with CE-DBT to digital mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance (MR). MATERIALS AND METHODS:CE-DBT (GE Senographe 2000D; Milwaukee, WI) was performed as a pilot study in an ongoing National Cancer Institute-funded grant (P01-CA85484) studying multimodality breast imaging. Thirteen patients with ACR BI-RADS category 4 or 5 breast lesions underwent imaging with digital mammography, ultrasound, MR, and CE-DBT. CE-DBT was performed at 49 kVp with a rhodium target and a 0.27-mm copper (Alfa Aesar, Ward Hill, MA) filter. Preinjection and postinjection DBT image sets were acquired in the medial lateral oblique projection with slight compression. Each image set consists of nine images acquired over a 50-degree arc and was obtained with a mean glandular x-ray dose comparable to two conventional mammographic views. Between the precontrast and postcontrast DBT image sets, a single bolus of iodinated contrast agent (1 ml/kg at 2 ml/s, Omnipaque-300; Amersham Health Inc., Princeton, NJ) was administered. Images were reconstructed using filtered-backprojection in 1-mm increments and transmitted to a clinical PACS workstation. RESULTS: Initial experience suggests that CE-DBT provides morphologic and vascular characteristics of breast lesions qualitatively concordant with that of digital mammography and MR. CONCLUSION: As an adjunct to digital mammography, CE-DBT may be a potential alternative tool for breast lesion morphologic and vascular characterization.
Authors: Mia Skarpathiotakis; Martin J Yaffe; Aili K Bloomquist; Dan Rico; Serge Muller; Andreas Rick; Fanny Jeunehomme Journal: Med Phys Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: C H Chang; D E Nesbit; D R Fisher; S L Fritz; S J Dwyer; A W Templeton; F Lin; W R Jewell Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1982-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Roberta A Jong; Martin J Yaffe; Mia Skarpathiotakis; Rene S Shumak; Nathalie M Danjoux; Anoma Gunesekara; Donald B Plewes Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-07-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicolas D Prionas; Karen K Lindfors; Shonket Ray; Shih-Ying Huang; Laurel A Beckett; Wayne L Monsky; John M Boone Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Roshan Karunamuni; Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Ajlan Al-Zaki; Anatoliy V Popov; Edward J Delikatny; Andrew Tsourkas; David P Cormode; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David R Busch; Regine Choe; Turgut Durduran; Daniel H Friedman; Wesley B Baker; Andrew D Maidment; Mark A Rosen; Mitchell D Schnall; Arjun G Yodh Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.173